Article

The MFMU Cesarean Registry: Factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 3.97). 10/2005; 193(3 Pt 2):1016-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.066
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine which factors influence the likelihood of successful trial of labor (TOL) after 1 previous cesarean delivery (CD).
We performed a multicenter 4-year prospective observational study (1999-2002) of all women with previous CD undergoing TOL. Women with term singleton pregnancies with 1 previous low transverse CD or unknown incision were included for analysis.
Fourteen thousand five hundred twenty-nine women underwent TOL, with 10,690 (73.6%) achieving successful VBAC. Women with previous vaginal birth had an 86.6% success rate compared with 60.9% in women without such a history (odds ratio [OR] 4.2; 95% CI 3.8-4.5; P < .001). TOL success rates were affected by previous indication for CD, need for induction or augmentation, cervical dilation on admission, birth weight, race, and maternal body mass index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified as predictive of TOL success: previous vaginal delivery (OR 3.9; 95% CI 3.6-4.3), previous indication not being dystocia (CPD/FTP) (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-1.8), spontaneous labor (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.5-1.8), birth weight <4000 g (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.8-2.3), and Caucasian race (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6-1.9) (all P < .001). The overall TOL success rate in obese women (BMI > or = 30) was lower (68.4%) than in nonobese women (79.6%) (P < .001), and when combined with induction and lack of previous vaginal delivery, successful VBAC occurred in only 44.2% of cases.
Previous vaginal delivery including previous VBAC is the greatest predictor for successful TOL. Previous indication as dystocia, need for labor induction, or a maternal BMI > or = 30 significantly lowers success rates.

2 Followers
 · 
232 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy there are two options for her care, an elective repeat caesarean or planned induction of labour. While there are risks and benefits for both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently any conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution. Objectives To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth, who require induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (31 October 2014). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies for women who planned an elective repeat caesarean section with outcomes in women who planned induction of labour, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. Data collection and analysis There was no data extraction performed. Main results There were no randomised controlled trials identified. Authors' conclusions Both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices is drawn from non-randomised studies that are associated with potential bias. Any results and conclusions must therefore be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 12/2014; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004906.pub4 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective:The study aim was to identify factors associated with vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in high-risk women.Study Design:This is a population-based retrospective cohort study of all births in Ohio during 2006 and 2007. High-risk patients were defined as singleton gestations in women with one previous cesarean who had ⩾1 of the following risk factors: body mass index (BMI)⩾30, hypertension, or diabetes. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to estimate the relative influence of each factor on successful VBAC.Result:A total of 280 882 births were analyzed: of them, 79 084 (27.1%) were high-risk pregnancies and 8658 (10.9%) women had undergone one previous cesarean; 1433 (16.6%) underwent a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). Of them, 974 (68.0%) had a successful VBAC, whereas 459 (32.0%) did not. Factors significantly associated with VBAC success were as follows: a prior vaginal delivery; pregnancy weight gain ⩽30 lbs; Caucasian race; and labor augmentation.Conclusion:High-risk women with one prior cesarean are unlikely to undergo a TOLAC, but have a high rate of VBAC.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 23 October 2014; doi:10.1038/jp.2014.196.
    Journal of perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association 10/2014; 35(4). DOI:10.1038/jp.2014.196 · 2.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Aims: Regional and interinstitutional variations have been recognized in the increasing incidence of caesarean section. Modes of birth after previous caesarean section vary widely, ranging from elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS) and unplanned repeat caesarean section (URCS) after trial of labour to vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC). This study describes interinstitutional variations in mode of birth after previous caesarean section in relation to regional indicators in Germany. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study using the birth registers of six maternity units (n=12,060) in five different German states (n=370,209). Indicators were tested by χ2 and relative deviations from regional values were expressed as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The percentages of women in the six units with previous caesarean section ranged from 11.9% to 15.9% (P=0.002). VBAC was planned for 36.0% to 49.8% (P=0.003) of these women, but actually completed in only 26.2% to 32.8% (P=0.66). Depending on the indicator, the units studied deviated from the regional data by up to 32% [relative risk 0.68 (0.47-0.97)] in respect of completed VBAC among all initiated VBAC. Conclusions: There is substantial interinstitutional variation in mode of birth following previous caesarean section. This variation is in addition to regional patterns.
    Journal of Perinatal Medicine 11/2014; 43(2). DOI:10.1515/jpm-2014-0108 · 1.43 Impact Factor

Similar Publications